"His zeal (St. Basil) for orthodoxy did not blind him to what was good in an opponent; and for the sake of peace and charity he was content to waive the use of orthodox terminology when it could be surrendered without a sacrifice of truth."

Can Church unity happen based on this? we all know by know if we study the E.O and R.C tradition that some of their terminology is a little far off for our tradition but they still keep the same faith. We also know St. Cyril of Alexandria did this he forgo some terminology in order to have Church peace but not at the expense of sacrificing the truth. Despite all other obstacles shouldn't this train of thought be used in order to bring unity among R.C E.O and O.O?

I'm interested in church unity, of course, but I would also like to know what you mean by this:

Quote

we all know by know if we study the E.O and R.C tradition that some of their terminology is a little far off for our tradition but they still keep the same faith.

I do not agree that the RC or EO keep the same faith as we do. On some points we are closer and on some we are further away, but it is simply not true that the things that separate us are all matters of differing terminology. But perhaps I have misunderstood what you mean, so I await your explanation.

Part of the problem here is that the softening (so to speak) was during a time in which the terminology was still in flux. So, for example, St. Basil affirmed the deity of the Holy Spirit, but did not go as far as St. Gregory the Theologian in the terms he used (which is something St. Gregory, in a roundabout way at least, chastised him for; though St. Gregory would also soften things at times when trying to reach agreement). However, once certain terms were put out there and accepted, you really couldn't go back. So, if St. Basil (and St. Gregory of Nyssa, etc.) did not go as far as some in how they spoke of the Holy Spirit, that was permitted; but for a theologian today to use the same vaguer or softer terms, after 1,500-1,600 years of orthodox use of more precise or detailed ones, it would be unacceptable. Sts. Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius the Great, etc. all said that they wanted to come to an agreement and not argue over words... but you can't merely use words to come to a lowest-common-denominator agreement either.

I'm interested in church unity, of course, but I would also like to know what you mean by this:

Quote

we all know by know if we study the E.O and R.C tradition that some of their terminology is a little far off for our tradition but they still keep the same faith.

I do not agree that the RC or EO keep the same faith as we do. On some points we are closer and on some we are further away, but it is simply not true that the things that separate us are all matters of differing terminology. But perhaps I have misunderstood what you mean, so I await your explanation.

I was trying to say by now we all know that most theologians think that both families have the same faith. On the ground of the quote posted above cant we find common ground to establish unity through the sacraments/faith but let jurisdictions/Rites continue?

I'm interested in church unity, of course, but I would also like to know what you mean by this:

Quote

we all know by know if we study the E.O and R.C tradition that some of their terminology is a little far off for our tradition but they still keep the same faith.

I do not agree that the RC or EO keep the same faith as we do. On some points we are closer and on some we are further away, but it is simply not true that the things that separate us are all matters of differing terminology. But perhaps I have misunderstood what you mean, so I await your explanation.

I was trying to say by now we all know that most theologians think that both families have the same faith. On the ground of the quote posted above cant we find common ground to establish unity through the sacraments/faith but let jurisdictions/Rites continue?

I don't know. Is it all about "rites"? That seems like what the Roman Catholic communion has tried to do with its Eastern Rites, but that's not the sort of thing I would want under any circumstances. Again, I don't know what you're basing this whole "both families have the same faith" idea on. I think the most honest thing we can say is that we are closer to the Eastern/Byzantine Orthodox in terms of praxis than to any other Church from whom we are separated, but not any sort of blanket statement that "both families have the same faith". That has clearly not been established to both families' satisfaction or else we would be in communion already. I agree with Jovan that the differences are much more pronounced today than they were in St. Basil's time. We are not to be pietists.

When you commune with someone, you are saying through that action "I accept and affirm the dogma and beliefs that you affirm". Well, not to sound like an extremist, but I do not accept Chalcedon/the Tome of Leo (the main stumbling block for the EO), nor the Universal Jurisdiction and Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Pope (the main stumbling block for the RC). So I don't particularly care what "most theologians" think, if they're looking to gloss over our very real differences and establish some sort of awful "communion that isn't communion" (since we don't hold the same faith). God forbid that such a thing should ever happen. Either we will unite (probably with the EO before the RC, if anyone) on the basis of a commonly understood, agreed upon, and proclaimed faith, or we'll stay apart because we don't actually believe what the Chalcedonians do. And they'll stay apart from us because they don't actually believe what we do.

The Roman Catholic Church isn't like Orthodoxy at all. Much of Catholic worship, doctrine, practice, devotion, artwork etc. are from the later medieval period. (Except Vatican II) They don't have much of their ancient selves left.

I think EOs and OOs are pretty alike though. But I still think many steps should be taken before any "unity."

But I am an outsider, what do I know?

« Last Edit: December 01, 2013, 05:42:25 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »

Logged

I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

What the Gospel tells us that Jesus said to the disciples was to go out and tell all what they had learned and saw. This is evident in most Christian churches, I have seen faith in Catholic , Protestant, and Orthodox Churches, what God has done I believe is accomodate , just as he said divorce was possible through Moses in the Old Testament to accomodate our weaknesses.

So he also has shown mercy on the faithful who bicker over doctrine, just as they did when Jesus stood before the temple, and was accused of being a heretic. I believe he allows the separate churches just as he welcomed the prodigal son. And he will do all he can to gather his sheep.

« Last Edit: December 01, 2013, 09:04:12 PM by Sinful Hypocrite »

Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“

If you really mean that, then I encourage you to learn more and comment less. But if it is merely false modesty, carry on, I suppose, because there's nothing I can say or do to effect a meaningful difference.

"His zeal (St. Basil) for orthodoxy did not blind him to what was good in an opponent; and for the sake of peace and charity he was content to waive the use of orthodox terminology when it could be surrendered without a sacrifice of truth."

Can Church unity happen based on this? we all know by know if we study the E.O and R.C tradition that some of their terminology is a little far off for our tradition but they still keep the same faith. We also know St. Cyril of Alexandria did this he forgo some terminology in order to have Church peace but not at the expense of sacrificing the truth. Despite all other obstacles shouldn't this train of thought be used in order to bring unity among R.C E.O and O.O?

I can definitely see the chances for an Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox unity in the near future. But, unity with RCC......sadly and maybe just as well, not in our lifetimes.

If you really mean that, then I encourage you to learn more and comment less. But if it is merely false modesty, carry on, I suppose, because there's nothing I can say or do to effect a meaningful difference.

As an aside, you said something like that to me maybe 11-12 years ago, and it helped. Stay the same, Mor

If you really mean that, then I encourage you to learn more and comment less. But if it is merely false modesty, carry on, I suppose, because there's nothing I can say or do to effect a meaningful difference.

ISTM that xOrthodox4Christx is simply commenting on the frequent dismissal of his views by others because he's "only an inquirer" and "not part of the Church".

If you really mean that, then I encourage you to learn more and comment less. But if it is merely false modesty, carry on, I suppose, because there's nothing I can say or do to effect a meaningful difference.

As an aside, you said something like that to me maybe 11-12 years ago, and it helped. Stay the same, Mor

If you really mean that, then I encourage you to learn more and comment less. But if it is merely false modesty, carry on, I suppose, because there's nothing I can say or do to effect a meaningful difference.

As an aside, you said something like that to me maybe 11-12 years ago, and it helped. Stay the same, Mor

ISTM that xOrthodox4Christx is simply commenting on the frequent dismissal of his views by others because he's "only an inquirer" and "not part of the Church".

I didn't know that this was the reason why his views are dismissed by others: if true, that's stupid of them. I presumed that his views were dismissed, if they were, because of statements like "The Roman Catholic Church isn't like Orthodoxy at all". While it's true we don't share the same faith, it's not like Roman Catholicism is voodoo compared to Orthodoxy.

I'm interested in church unity, of course, but I would also like to know what you mean by this:

Quote

we all know by know if we study the E.O and R.C tradition that some of their terminology is a little far off for our tradition but they still keep the same faith.

I do not agree that the RC or EO keep the same faith as we do. On some points we are closer and on some we are further away, but it is simply not true that the things that separate us are all matters of differing terminology. But perhaps I have misunderstood what you mean, so I await your explanation.

I was trying to say by now we all know that most theologians think that both families have the same faith. On the ground of the quote posted above cant we find common ground to establish unity through the sacraments/faith but let jurisdictions/Rites continue?

I don't know. Is it all about "rites"? That seems like what the Roman Catholic communion has tried to do with its Eastern Rites, but that's not the sort of thing I would want under any circumstances. Again, I don't know what you're basing this whole "both families have the same faith" idea on. I think the most honest thing we can say is that we are closer to the Eastern/Byzantine Orthodox in terms of praxis than to any other Church from whom we are separated, but not any sort of blanket statement that "both families have the same faith". That has clearly not been established to both families' satisfaction or else we would be in communion already. I agree with Jovan that the differences are much more pronounced today than they were in St. Basil's time. We are not to be pietists.

When you commune with someone, you are saying through that action "I accept and affirm the dogma and beliefs that you affirm". Well, not to sound like an extremist, but I do not accept Chalcedon/the Tome of Leo (the main stumbling block for the EO), nor the Universal Jurisdiction and Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Pope (the main stumbling block for the RC). So I don't particularly care what "most theologians" think, if they're looking to gloss over our very real differences and establish some sort of awful "communion that isn't communion" (since we don't hold the same faith). God forbid that such a thing should ever happen. Either we will unite (probably with the EO before the RC, if anyone) on the basis of a commonly understood, agreed upon, and proclaimed faith, or we'll stay apart because we don't actually believe what the Chalcedonians do. And they'll stay apart from us because they don't actually believe what we do.

How are R.C and E.O different in Faith? We all have the same Christology, it is not Nestorian or Arian but Orthodox. We believe that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man Incarnate. We believe in the grace filled Sacraments and the body and blood of the Lord in the Eucharist.

As far as the procession of the Holy Spirit most R.C I talk with believe the same thing we do just they don't mean proceed to mean originate yada yada. And E.O believe the same as we do.

Most of the problems come from old hatred, jurisdiction, politics, or a mix of all.

The minor things such as unleavened bread, baptism without immersion can be accepted based on the Rite and is allowed in the Dedache.

I would agree that the E.O and O.O are much closer and Rome needs to work on a lot but my question was is it possible to have unity based on what St Basil said between O.O and E.O; with them keeping the 7-councils and we keep the 3 as long as there is no compromise to the faith?

Unity would be based on:

Orthodox Faith and Sacraments. Jurisdiction can be worked out later etc.

I was trying to say by now we all know that most theologians think that both families have the same faith. On the ground of the quote posted above cant we find common ground to establish unity through the sacraments/faith but let jurisdictions/Rites continue?

This is basically the case as it pertains to the EO, but honestly (and sadly) I don't think the same can be said for the RCC. Do you really believe that there are not substantial doctrinal differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism? I agree with you about the leavened vs. unleavened thing (we have that in our own Communion, after all) but I think you're glossing over some of the more substantial differences (including the filioque - read here: http://orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/2013/09/10/dropthefilioque-org/). Here are some articles outlining some of the differences. Certainly, some of the them are minor (married vs. strictly celibate priests) but others are more significant.

I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

I was trying to say by now we all know that most theologians think that both families have the same faith. On the ground of the quote posted above cant we find common ground to establish unity through the sacraments/faith but let jurisdictions/Rites continue?

This is basically the case as it pertains to the EO, but honestly (and sadly) I don't think the same can be said for the RCC. Do you really believe that there are not substantial doctrinal differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism? I agree with you about the leavened vs. unleavened thing (we have that in our own Communion, after all) but I think you're glossing over some of the more substantial differences (including the filioque - read here: http://orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/2013/09/10/dropthefilioque-org/). Here are some articles outlining some of the differences. Certainly, some of the them are minor (married vs. strictly celibate priests) but others are more significant

+1

Actually, the unity of sacraments sometimes exists between EO and OO, as it's been proved by theological commissions, we share the same faith. One of the evidences is the fact that after so many years of isolation and this "separation" (I use this word because I don't think it's a schism) we still sharing the same spirituality, mentality, many feasts and fasts and above all, the teaching. And it's not the case with the Catholics, although the schism happened much more later. They've changed so many things in liturgical and doctrinal sense...

There is no problem with jurisdictions (ethnic/languages), which was probably one of the causes of this "separation" of the one Orthodox family, as nowadays both EO and OO have huge diaspora and overlapping jurisdictions. However, maybe it would be better to have one patriarch in each Holy See after the death of present ones.. I think the only serious problem for EO and OO are some saints, I'm not any theologian, so don't have any idea what we should to do with this fact. But I suppose it can be revised (I mean the reasons why the other side doesn't want to accept the particular saint). I hope that the reunification take place during my lifehood and that after all these meetings they (I mean hierarchy) are just waiting for the positive reception of the faithful, which is the norm in both Orthodox tradition and not in the Catholicism - there the pope introduces something or announces something (like e.g sainthood) and the faithful have to submit to his decisions.

And as for RC, I can add that they're so centred on the person of the pope and the newest "apparitions" and heresies having roots in them (like immaculate conception) that they would have to change the whole point of view to come back to the unity with the Holy Orthodox Church (EO & OO). What's more, because of these heresies and attempts to be "a Church for people" (I mean Vaticanum secundum) they've been losing step by step the Holy Liturgy and sainthood (e.g almost no asceticism because of the lack of fasting periods almost at all), for a few centuries they take Communion only by eating the Body, which is against the words of Christ, etc. etc.

Logged

Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

What the Gospel tells us that Jesus said to the disciples was to go out and tell all what they had learned and saw. This is evident in most Christian churches, I have seen faith in Catholic , Protestant, and Orthodox Churches, what God has done I believe is accomodate , just as he said divorce was possible through Moses in the Old Testament to accomodate our weaknesses.

So he also has shown mercy on the faithful who bicker over doctrine, just as they did when Jesus stood before the temple, and was accused of being a heretic. I believe he allows the separate churches just as he welcomed the prodigal son. And he will do all he can to gather his sheep.

The prodigal son came back. Separate churches do not: if they do, they are just "Church."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Unity would be wonderful, and I don't condemn anyone for having that hope and dream. But we should be frank and honest with each other. It reminds me of the conversations that I have had and seen with Latins over the Filoque. Like how many are saying now that it's "No Big Deal" and that we really believe the same thing, we just word it differently....Really?

Sound familiar?

I bring up the issue of the Filoque because much of the rhetoric about that disagreement has been parroted in the disagreements with the Non-Chalcedonians. "We believe the same thing, just express it differently...."

I am just a layman, but I have a hard time accepting the idea that Our Church Fathers didn't know what they were talking about (And you no doubt feel the same about yours).

These are real issues, and they are deep. We have a few Ethiopians who attend my parish. We don't debate Chalcedon, but hang out after Divine Liturgy and have coffee. I am content to let the "Men in Black" sort it all out...

Are you Orthodox? I want to think so. And I know many of you want to think the same of us.

« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 08:31:27 AM by Misplaced Book »

Logged

"A positive thought is worth more than a vigil service on Mt. Athos." -St. Paisios the Athonite

Let's not hijack the Non-Chalcedonian Forum with talk about Rome exclusively.

Fabio: I hope for Unity in the same way that I hope that the vast majority of humanity will be saved on the Last Day of Judgement. There is nothing wrong with hoping that somehow we could figure it all out, or that Mercy will be given widely.

At the same time, I believe in honesty about what we believe, and how we view the Non-Chalcedonians (as well as the Latins, Protestants and whoever else). Honesty does not mean viciousness, or condemnation. Only God can do that. Politics will always be politics. We can support and applaud each other as far as we support Orthodox teaching...and disagree and part ways when they don't (or we, in their POV).

« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 09:32:07 AM by Misplaced Book »

Logged

"A positive thought is worth more than a vigil service on Mt. Athos." -St. Paisios the Athonite

"His zeal (St. Basil) for orthodoxy did not blind him to what was good in an opponent; and for the sake of peace and charity he was content to waive the use of orthodox terminology when it could be surrendered without a sacrifice of truth."

Can Church unity happen based on this? we all know by know if we study the E.O and R.C tradition that some of their terminology is a little far off for our tradition but they still keep the same faith. We also know St. Cyril of Alexandria did this he forgo some terminology in order to have Church peace but not at the expense of sacrificing the truth. Despite all other obstacles shouldn't this train of thought be used in order to bring unity among R.C E.O and O.O?

I agree, but not all are on board with this method.

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

I'm interested in church unity, of course, but I would also like to know what you mean by this:

Quote

we all know by know if we study the E.O and R.C tradition that some of their terminology is a little far off for our tradition but they still keep the same faith.

I do not agree that the RC or EO keep the same faith as we do. On some points we are closer and on some we are further away, but it is simply not true that the things that separate us are all matters of differing terminology. But perhaps I have misunderstood what you mean, so I await your explanation.

I was trying to say by now we all know that most theologians think that both families have the same faith. On the ground of the quote posted above cant we find common ground to establish unity through the sacraments/faith but let jurisdictions/Rites continue?

I don't know. Is it all about "rites"? That seems like what the Roman Catholic communion has tried to do with its Eastern Rites, but that's not the sort of thing I would want under any circumstances. Again, I don't know what you're basing this whole "both families have the same faith" idea on. I think the most honest thing we can say is that we are closer to the Eastern/Byzantine Orthodox in terms of praxis than to any other Church from whom we are separated, but not any sort of blanket statement that "both families have the same faith". That has clearly not been established to both families' satisfaction or else we would be in communion already. I agree with Jovan that the differences are much more pronounced today than they were in St. Basil's time. We are not to be pietists.

When you commune with someone, you are saying through that action "I accept and affirm the dogma and beliefs that you affirm". Well, not to sound like an extremist, but I do not accept Chalcedon/the Tome of Leo (the main stumbling block for the EO), nor the Universal Jurisdiction and Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Pope (the main stumbling block for the RC). So I don't particularly care what "most theologians" think, if they're looking to gloss over our very real differences and establish some sort of awful "communion that isn't communion" (since we don't hold the same faith). God forbid that such a thing should ever happen. Either we will unite (probably with the EO before the RC, if anyone) on the basis of a commonly understood, agreed upon, and proclaimed faith, or we'll stay apart because we don't actually believe what the Chalcedonians do. And they'll stay apart from us because they don't actually believe what we do.

I honestly do not understand the Oriental Orthodox objection to the Tome of Leo. Before it was approved at Chalcedon, a committee studied it and decided that Leo's Tome was in conformity with St. Cyril's 12 Anathemas against Nestorius. At the council, the Letter of St. Cyril to John of Antioch was read and entered into the minutes before the Tome of Leo. Lest there be any doubt that Chalcedon was not meant to contradict St. Cyril, the 5th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II in 553, which condemned the Three Chapters, made it clear that Chalcedon was to be interpreted in conformity with the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. I agree that taken out of this context it is possible to accept the Tome of Leo and advocate a Nestorian Christology. Calvin did this and as a result Calvinist Christology is basically Nestorian.I believe that the real division is not really over Christology, but over the interpretation of history. For example, the Oriental Orthodox consider Dioscorus a saint, while we Eastern Orthodox do not. Frankly, I find it rather difficult to read an account of the Council of Ephesus of 449 and come away with anything but a rather negative view of Dioscorus. On the other hand, Eastern Orthodox sing the hymn "O only begotten..." as the 2nd Antiphon of the Divine Liturgy. This hymn is usually attributed to Justinian. However, many historians believe that it was actually written by Servius of Antioch who is considered an heretic by Eastern Orthodox. If that is true, it would be rather difficult for us to consider someone's Christology heretical if we sing a summary of his Chrstological theology as an important part of our Liturgy. But, I am only an historian. These differences can only be solved by theologians and Bishops who have the authority to deal with such matters.

father, there are many different views on the tome of the roman patriarch leo in our communion, it is the interpretations of chalcedon around the year 500AD that lead to the split as far as i can see (disclaimer: amateur church historian - i don't even have history books at home so don't take me too seriously).

we are mostly very keen for closer unity (those against are mainly the netodox!) and you won't find OO priests saying to people (about the EO) 'oh, don't go there, they are not really orthodox'.as a historian, i am sure you know that history is reinterpreted by the victorious, which is why some accounts of chalcedon, even those written soon after the event are biased.

i see it (chalcedon) as being more about the roman empire trying to get a bigger tribute / tax of egyptian wheat and failing.if you read into it too many theological nuances (Christology for example), you can easily miss the point that it was originally about the imperialism of the 'holy' roman empire and the fate of those who were not subservient to it.

it would be like thinking that the decades of unrest in northern ireland were about the catholics and the protestants, instead of realising it was about the imperalist british trying to rob more power and resources from the irish warrior clans.

like at chalcedon, there have been true Christians on both sides trying to make sense of it all...

I think that most historians would agree that Egyptian nationalism played a major role in the schism. The Copts were already upset that their Patriarchate was demoted to third rank by giving Constantinople second rank at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, the 1st Council of Constantinople in 381. Pope Theophilus had played a role in the persecution of St. John Chrysostom in the affair of the Tall Brothers. There is also no doubt that Coptic nationalism expressed by their objection to the condemnation of Dioscorus by Chalcedon played a major role in the schism. However, a lot of the problem was that the followers of St. Cyril of Alexandria lacked the flexibility that he displayed in his letter to John of Antioch in which he acknowledged that the same Faith could be expressed in different terms. I believe that every effort was made by the Chalcedonians to convince the non-Chalcedonians that they had remained faithful to the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. The Council of Chalcedon referred the Tome of Leo to a committee which compared it with the 12 Anathemas by St. Cyril against Nestorianism and decided that the Tome of Leo was in conformity with the teachings of St. Cyril before it was presented to the council. The Letter of St. Cyril to John of Antioch was read and accepted at Chalcedon before the Tome of Leo was read and accepted. The 5th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II, in 553 that condemned the Thre Chapters and reaffirmed the condemnation of Nestorianism should have ended all concern that the Chalcedonians had surrendered to Nestorianism. I agree that if one takes the Tome of Leo and the Profession of Faith issued by Chalcedon out of context, it is possible to give them a Nestorian interpretation. Calvin and Calvinism shows that. Calvin and the growing number of American Evangelicals who follow him actually teach a Nestorian Christology. By the way, usually when historians refer to the Holy Roman Empire, he or she means the German Empire founded by Charlemagne in 800.Well qualified theologians on both sides have already agreed that we share a common Faith. It that is true, should we allow disagreements about historical events that took place 1,600 years ago keep us divided?

I think that most historians would agree that Egyptian nationalism played a major role in the schism. The Copts were already upset that their Patriarchate was demoted to third rank by giving Constantinople second rank at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, the 1st Council of Constantinople in 381. Pope Theophilus had played a role in the persecution of St. John Chrysostom in the affair of the Tall Brothers. There is also no doubt that Coptic nationalism expressed by their objection to the condemnation of Dioscorus by Chalcedon played a major role in the schism. However, a lot of the problem was that the followers of St. Cyril of Alexandria lacked the flexibility that he displayed in his letter to John of Antioch in which he acknowledged that the same Faith could be expressed in different terms. I believe that every effort was made by the Chalcedonians to convince the non-Chalcedonians that they had remained faithful to the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. The Council of Chalcedon referred the Tome of Leo to a committee which compared it with the 12 Anathemas by St. Cyril against Nestorianism and decided that the Tome of Leo was in conformity with the teachings of St. Cyril before it was presented to the council. The Letter of St. Cyril to John of Antioch was read and accepted at Chalcedon before the Tome of Leo was read and accepted. The 5th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II, in 553 that condemned the Thre Chapters and reaffirmed the condemnation of Nestorianism should have ended all concern that the Chalcedonians had surrendered to Nestorianism. I agree that if one takes the Tome of Leo and the Profession of Faith issued by Chalcedon out of context, it is possible to give them a Nestorian interpretation. Calvin and Calvinism shows that. Calvin and the growing number of American Evangelicals who follow him actually teach a Nestorian Christology. By the way, usually when historians refer to the Holy Roman Empire, he or she means the German Empire founded by Charlemagne in 800.Well qualified theologians on both sides have already agreed that we share a common Faith. It that is true, should we allow disagreements about historical events that took place 1,600 years ago keep us divided?

Fr. John Morris

The last Mar Shimun Catholicos of the Nestorians fully embraced the Protestants and Protestantism.

« Last Edit: December 08, 2013, 09:44:14 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I think that most historians would agree that Egyptian nationalism played a major role in the schism. The Copts were already upset that their Patriarchate was demoted to third rank by giving Constantinople second rank at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, the 1st Council of Constantinople in 381. Pope Theophilus had played a role in the persecution of St. John Chrysostom in the affair of the Tall Brothers. There is also no doubt that Coptic nationalism expressed by their objection to the condemnation of Dioscorus by Chalcedon played a major role in the schism. However, a lot of the problem was that the followers of St. Cyril of Alexandria lacked the flexibility that he displayed in his letter to John of Antioch in which he acknowledged that the same Faith could be expressed in different terms. I believe that every effort was made by the Chalcedonians to convince the non-Chalcedonians that they had remained faithful to the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. The Council of Chalcedon referred the Tome of Leo to a committee which compared it with the 12 Anathemas by St. Cyril against Nestorianism and decided that the Tome of Leo was in conformity with the teachings of St. Cyril before it was presented to the council. The Letter of St. Cyril to John of Antioch was read and accepted at Chalcedon before the Tome of Leo was read and accepted. The 5th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II, in 553 that condemned the Thre Chapters and reaffirmed the condemnation of Nestorianism should have ended all concern that the Chalcedonians had surrendered to Nestorianism. I agree that if one takes the Tome of Leo and the Profession of Faith issued by Chalcedon out of context, it is possible to give them a Nestorian interpretation. Calvin and Calvinism shows that. Calvin and the growing number of American Evangelicals who follow him actually teach a Nestorian Christology. By the way, usually when historians refer to the Holy Roman Empire, he or she means the German Empire founded by Charlemagne in 800.Well qualified theologians on both sides have already agreed that we share a common Faith. It that is true, should we allow disagreements about historical events that took place 1,600 years ago keep us divided?

Fr. John Morris

Father bless!

And welcome to the Oriental Orthodox forum.

I'm afraid that the issues surrounding the OO's and Chalcedon are pretty complicated. For example, the claim that nationalism played a major part in the schism can be countered by the fact that the Armenians rejected Chalcedon when Emperor Zeno's Henoticon was in place, thus putting the Armenians in the position of being on the same side of the Emperor. The claim also minimalizes the theological and historical objections to Chalcedon that the OO's feel they are justified in making. And the fact that the Fathers of Chalcedon declared the Tome to be consistent with the teachings of St. Cyril can be countered by other things said and done during the council which make the OO's feel the homage paid to St. Cyril was really lip service.

It can be a messy and painful topic, which is why discussions about Chalcedon often end up in the private forum we have for polemics. Of course as long as the discussion remains academic and polite, it can remain here in the public forum. It's just that we normally can't get into too much detail about Chalcedon before someone says something that can offend someone else, and then it gets kicked into the private forum.

I do look forward to hearing any ideas you might have about how our two Churches may one day unite. That is something I and many others here hope and pray will happen.

I'm interested in church unity, of course, but I would also like to know what you mean by this:

Quote

we all know by know if we study the E.O and R.C tradition that some of their terminology is a little far off for our tradition but they still keep the same faith.

I do not agree that the RC or EO keep the same faith as we do. On some points we are closer and on some we are further away, but it is simply not true that the things that separate us are all matters of differing terminology. But perhaps I have misunderstood what you mean, so I await your explanation.

I was trying to say by now we all know that most theologians think that both families have the same faith. On the ground of the quote posted above cant we find common ground to establish unity through the sacraments/faith but let jurisdictions/Rites continue?

I don't know. Is it all about "rites"? That seems like what the Roman Catholic communion has tried to do with its Eastern Rites, but that's not the sort of thing I would want under any circumstances. Again, I don't know what you're basing this whole "both families have the same faith" idea on. I think the most honest thing we can say is that we are closer to the Eastern/Byzantine Orthodox in terms of praxis than to any other Church from whom we are separated, but not any sort of blanket statement that "both families have the same faith". That has clearly not been established to both families' satisfaction or else we would be in communion already. I agree with Jovan that the differences are much more pronounced today than they were in St. Basil's time. We are not to be pietists.

When you commune with someone, you are saying through that action "I accept and affirm the dogma and beliefs that you affirm". Well, not to sound like an extremist, but I do not accept Chalcedon/the Tome of Leo (the main stumbling block for the EO), nor the Universal Jurisdiction and Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Pope (the main stumbling block for the RC). So I don't particularly care what "most theologians" think, if they're looking to gloss over our very real differences and establish some sort of awful "communion that isn't communion" (since we don't hold the same faith). God forbid that such a thing should ever happen. Either we will unite (probably with the EO before the RC, if anyone) on the basis of a commonly understood, agreed upon, and proclaimed faith, or we'll stay apart because we don't actually believe what the Chalcedonians do. And they'll stay apart from us because they don't actually believe what we do.

I honestly do not understand the Oriental Orthodox objection to the Tome of Leo. [etc. ...]

Fr. John W. Morris

I am aware that you do not understand, Father, and I am aware that you and all Chalcedonians see the Tome as Orthodox. With due respect, there is little that I or anyone could say to convince you of Orthodoxy of the non-Chalcedonian stance, and frankly I am not really interested in trying to do so anyway. I have thoroughly studied the both the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian stances from both period and modern sources and ultimately decided in favor of the non-Chalcedonian party. I find EO claims of ethnic nationalism on the part of what would become the OO to be a later rationalization that is faulty in many ways, but far be it for me to tell a historian how to do his job.

In short, just as in our previous conversations, you have your viewpoint that is very much on display and supported by like-minded partisans, but I am not one of them, so I do not know what you hope to accomplish by addressing my post as you have. Suffice it to say this is not a conversation I wish to have with you, as it will only bring forth more disagreement, and I am as secure and happy in my choice of communion as you are in yours (I did not become OO out of a hatred of Chalcedon or Chalcedonians, that's for sure). I do agree, however, that these matters can only be solved by those invested with the authority to solve them, i.e., not anyone on this message board.

May I add also, that after reading and studying the history for my own, while I support EO/OO unity, my support goes to my Church. After reading the minutes, I have much sympathy with Pope Dioscorus, and actually see him in a very positive light. In the same way as you see Ephesus 449, so do I for Chalcedon, in that negative light.

However, I'm a "progressive". I'm willing to debate why I see the differences in historical interpretation, and I'm willing accept the different historical interpretation of the Chalcedonian side. This acceptance of difference for me, a forgiveness of the past, and a moving on forward of a theological unity is what I personally advocate. After all, even though St. Cyril lifted anathemas from St. John Chrysostom, he wasn't shy in stating how he continued to justify Pope Theophilus' condemnation of him. I think we can learn from that precedent, that while we can justify our own positions, it does us nothing but leave us in an awkward position. We both hold the same Orthodox faith, but we remain divided because we just are not comfortable for whatever reason with uniting with a church where for centuries carried in us respectively the condemnation of those fathers we conversely held dearly to, and I don't think there's anything we can do about that but accept it humbly and accept the obvious one faith we carry together humbly, and let the rest be history. That is my take on unity.

The unity between St. Cyril and John of Antioch ironically is also another example to how we view unity to happen. St. Cyril did not ask the patriarch John to accept Ephesus, but to accept the faith written in this paper. It was enough for him to agree that St. Cyril rejoiced. It seems to me that his view of ecumenical councils was not a name that people should adhere to, but the faith it represents. Thus, our unity should not hinder the respective veneration of Ephesus 449 on our side or Chalcedon on your's, but equally recognizes that in each other's interpretation, we have precisely this one faith.

Finally, the fact that there are interpretations means that there needs to be a new way to think of our history. We need to admit that deep beneath the interpretation, there are holes that allow room for speculation that leads one to justify their respective sides. We need to admit that we are not going to look eye-to-eye on every little detail in this complex history of ours that have played so well into how this lead to this split until today. We need to admit that even if we lean towards one way, we can sympathize with why the other side can lean towards the other way. I think that's another way to move forward from all this.

Pray for me a sinner, Father. Welcome to oc.net!

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

May I add also, that after reading and studying the history for my own, while I support EO/OO unity, my support goes to my Church. After reading the minutes, I have much sympathy with Pope Dioscorus, and actually see him in a very positive light. In the same way as you see Ephesus 449, so do I for Chalcedon, in that negative light.

However, I'm a "progressive". I'm willing to debate why I see the differences in historical interpretation, and I'm willing accept the different historical interpretation of the Chalcedonian side. This acceptance of difference for me, a forgiveness of the past, and a moving on forward of a theological unity is what I personally advocate. After all, even though St. Cyril lifted anathemas from St. John Chrysostom, he wasn't shy in stating how he continued to justify Pope Theophilus' condemnation of him. I think we can learn from that precedent, that while we can justify our own positions, it does us nothing but leave us in an awkward position. We both hold the same Orthodox faith, but we remain divided because we just are not comfortable for whatever reason with uniting with a church where for centuries carried in us respectively the condemnation of those fathers we conversely held dearly to, and I don't think there's anything we can do about that but accept it humbly and accept the obvious one faith we carry together humbly, and let the rest be history. That is my take on unity.

The unity between St. Cyril and John of Antioch ironically is also another example to how we view unity to happen. St. Cyril did not ask the patriarch John to accept Ephesus, but to accept the faith written in this paper. It was enough for him to agree that St. Cyril rejoiced. It seems to me that his view of ecumenical councils was not a name that people should adhere to, but the faith it represents. Thus, our unity should not hinder the respective veneration of Ephesus 449 on our side or Chalcedon on your's, but equally recognizes that in each other's interpretation, we have precisely this one faith.

Finally, the fact that there are interpretations means that there needs to be a new way to think of our history. We need to admit that deep beneath the interpretation, there are holes that allow room for speculation that leads one to justify their respective sides. We need to admit that we are not going to look eye-to-eye on every little detail in this complex history of ours that have played so well into how this lead to this split until today. We need to admit that even if we lean towards one way, we can sympathize with why the other side can lean towards the other way. I think that's another way to move forward from all this.

Pray for me a sinner, Father. Welcome to oc.net!

Nothing written on this or any other web site will resolve the schism. The only way that it will be solved will be with the leaders of the two families of Orthodox Churches agree on a common Faith something following the example of the letter of St. Cyril to John of Antioch. I do not understand why you find Chalcedon so objectionable, if you read the accounts of the council, it is clear that the Fathers of Chalcedon did not endorse Nestorianism. If Chalcedon was not clear enough, surely the II Council of Constantinople in 553 that mandated that Chalcedon must be interpreted in conformity with the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria should have shown that the Church had not fallen into Nestorianism, at least the Eastern Orthodox. It is true that Pope Vigilius only agreed to the condemnation of the Three Chapters after the council threatened to excommunicate him if he did not. It is also true that Milan and other Western Churches broke Communion with Rome over the Roman acceptance of Constantinople II. These facts show that the Ecumenical Councils as well as large segments of the West did not accept papal supremacy or infallibility on matters of doctrine at that time, but that is a different subject. On the other hand I find it difficult to justify the behavior of Dioscorus at Ephesus in 449. Just the refusal to allow the Tome of Leo to be considered and the brutal treatment of Patriarch Flavan are enough to discredit the council in my eyes. However, history is for historians. As interesting as historical debates are they will not resolve the schism. No one can undo the mistakes of the past. What is important is not where we were in 451, but where we are now. That is a matter for theologians, not historians to decide. The theologians report to the leaders of the Churches and they make the decisions on what it takes to reunify our churches. I do pray that re-unity will be possible after further discussions between the leaders of both the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox.

This is what I mean about interpretation Father. It is not at all clear to me that Pope Dioscorus is directly responsible for Patriarch Flavius' beating. We know that the imperial government was at times harsh to those who were condemned at a council endorsed by the empire (one can only understand the violent pursuit of St. Athanasius, or the beating of Pope Vigilius, or the suffering of Maximus the Confessor to know the danger of trying to stand against an imperially endorsed council). And we feel that it is clear that Ephesus 449 was an Orthodox council affirming Ephesus 431. What you see as clear of the Orthodoxy of Chalcedon was not clear to the Oriental Orthodox Church. And if clarified in Constantinople 553, this clarification only is interpreted to the Oriental Orthodox that it just wasn't clear after all a century before that. As dzheremi puts it, we feel it's nothing but "a later rationalization that is faulty in many ways." But I'm not concerned with telling you to accept this or that council. My concern is for the one faith. If we have that, we shouldn't be concerned with why we don't accept or reject this or that person or council.

« Last Edit: December 09, 2013, 01:17:29 AM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

At this point, I am going to ask that we stick to the OP, and avoid getting any further into the events surrounding Chalcedon and Ephesus 449. Pursuant to forum rules, I want to prevent this from getting polemical, and I can see it starting to go in that direction.

If anyone wants to continue the conversation about Ephesus 449, or the reasons for rejecting Chalcedon or the Tome, they may do so in the private forum. If anyone who does not belong to the private forum wants to be admitted, they may pm Fr. George and ask for admission.

I'm interested in church unity, of course, but I would also like to know what you mean by this:

Quote

we all know by know if we study the E.O and R.C tradition that some of their terminology is a little far off for our tradition but they still keep the same faith.

I do not agree that the RC or EO keep the same faith as we do. On some points we are closer and on some we are further away, but it is simply not true that the things that separate us are all matters of differing terminology. But perhaps I have misunderstood what you mean, so I await your explanation.

I was trying to say by now we all know that most theologians think that both families have the same faith. On the ground of the quote posted above cant we find common ground to establish unity through the sacraments/faith but let jurisdictions/Rites continue?

I do not see how unity could be achieved in any other way but to recognize unity in belief but diversity in worship. The Oriental Orthodox have ancient liturgical traditions that they should preserve, just as we Eastern Orthodox should preserve our liturgical traditions. All that matters is unity in doctrine, not unity in liturgics. I do not think that anyone with any sense should expect the Oriental Orthodox to be absorbed by the Eastern Orthodox or the Eastern Orthodox to be absorbed by the Oriental Orthodox. Just as in America, Russian and Greek Orthodox keep their own administration and liturgical practices, but are in Communion with the Antiochians who keep our own administration and liturgical practices, so can the Oriental Orthodox be in Communion with the Eastern Orthodox and keep their own administration and liturgical traditions.

I'm interested in church unity, of course, but I would also like to know what you mean by this:

Quote

we all know by know if we study the E.O and R.C tradition that some of their terminology is a little far off for our tradition but they still keep the same faith.

I do not agree that the RC or EO keep the same faith as we do. On some points we are closer and on some we are further away, but it is simply not true that the things that separate us are all matters of differing terminology. But perhaps I have misunderstood what you mean, so I await your explanation.

I was trying to say by now we all know that most theologians think that both families have the same faith. On the ground of the quote posted above cant we find common ground to establish unity through the sacraments/faith but let jurisdictions/Rites continue?

I do not see how unity could be achieved in any other way but to recognize unity in belief but diversity in worship. The Oriental Orthodox have ancient liturgical traditions that they should preserve, just as we Eastern Orthodox should preserve our liturgical traditions. All that matters is unity in doctrine, not unity in liturgics. I do not think that anyone with any sense should expect the Oriental Orthodox to be absorbed by the Eastern Orthodox or the Eastern Orthodox to be absorbed by the Oriental Orthodox. Just as in America, Russian and Greek Orthodox keep their own administration and liturgical practices, but are in Communion with the Antiochians who keep our own administration and liturgical practices, so can the Oriental Orthodox be in Communion with the Eastern Orthodox and keep their own administration and liturgical traditions.

Fr. John W. MorrisFr. John W. Morris

Amen!

I agree. This is the tradition of the Church fathers, and if unity was to happen, this is the tradition that we will also uphold. Unity in dogma while diverse in liturgical cultures.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

It is necessary to mention that between Ecumenical Councils, i.e., during the process of reception, Church leaders belonging to different theological groups often broke eucharistie communion with each other. But this was not the norm. There were notable theologians who called for eucharistie communion based on a certain "minimum" which did not demand absolutely identical dogmatic formulations. St Basil the Great stood for the divinity of the Holy Spirit, yet in the effort to retain peace inside the Church of his day he did not confess this out loud, neither did he demand it as a prerequisite for communion:

"Let us then seek nothing more, but merely propose the Nicene faith to the brethren who wish to join us. And if they agree to this, let us demand also that the Holy Spirit shall not be called a creature, and that those who do so call him shall not be in communion with them. But beyond these things I think nothing should be insisted on by us. For I am convinced that by longer association together and by mutual experience without strife, even if there should be need of some addition being made for clarification, the Lord who works all things together unto good to such as love him will give it."

In this way, St Basil the Great understood that different Churches could have different levels of theology: the things acceptable in the eyes of some could seem unacceptable innovations for others. But "by longer association together and by mutual experience," and, he implies, through eucharistie communion together, those previously unacceptable formulations might come to be acceptable. For St Basil, the most important thing was Church unity. "It is good to unite what has been separated. If we should be willing to condescend to the weaker, whenever we can do so without causing harm to souls, we will reach that union."

The Reception of the Ecumenical Councils in the Early Churchby Met Hilarion AlfeyevSt. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 47:3-4 (2003) 413-30

St Basil the Great stood for the divinity of the Holy Spirit, yet in the effort to retain peace inside the Church of his day he did not confess this out loud, neither did he demand it as a prerequisite for communion:

Quote

"let us demand also that the Holy Spirit shall not be called a creature, and that those who do so call him shall not be in communion with them."

It sounds like he did in fact confess the Holy Spirit's divinity out loud and demand it as a prerequisite for communion. If the Holy Spirit isn't a creature, he must be the Uncreated.

« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 01:26:02 PM by Regnare »

Logged

"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust." --Psalm 91: 1-2

The key in my mind seems to be mutual acceptance of the faith statements of the Ecumenical Councils. This is because one of the main ideas in Orthodoxy is that Ecumenical Councils are either infallible when confirmed or at least of a maximum high level of authority, like Scripture.

Were there times in the past when some churches did not accept all the faith statements of Ecumenical Councils?

I know there were times when churches disagreed with some ritual things endorsed at Councils: The Roman Church did not agree with the Apostles' Canons' demand for rebaptising those with heretic baptisms, even though the Apostles' Canons were endorsed by an Ecumenical Council. But that is more of a ritual matter.

Logged

The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

The key in my mind seems to be mutual acceptance of the faith statements of the Ecumenical Councils. This is because one of the main ideas in Orthodoxy is that Ecumenical Councils are either infallible when confirmed or at least of a maximum high level of authority, like Scripture.

Were there times in the past when some churches did not accept all the faith statements of Ecumenical Councils?

I know there were times when churches disagreed with some ritual things endorsed at Councils: The Roman Church did not agree with the Apostles' Canons' demand for rebaptising those with heretic baptisms, even though the Apostles' Canons were endorsed by an Ecumenical Council. But that is more of a ritual matter.

Canon 95 of the Council in Trullo allows for the reception of converts from schismatic and heretical groups by profession of faith, Chrismation or Baptism. Recognized by the 7th Ecumenical Council, Nicaea II in 787, the Council in Trullo has greater authority than the Apostolic Canons. Besides, what was considered an heretic at the time of the Apostles would be someone like a Gnostic or other sect that is not Christian. St. Basil defines an heretic as someone who worships different God than Christians. In the U.S. most Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions receive those Baptized "in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" through Chrismation. We have to be very specific because of the influence of feminist theology which rejects Biblical language for God, and uses "Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier," of whatever is politically correct this week instead of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Oriental Orthodox would be received by a simple profession of faith. Moscow also received Roman Catholics by a profession of faith.

I'm interested in church unity, of course, but I would also like to know what you mean by this:

Quote

we all know by know if we study the E.O and R.C tradition that some of their terminology is a little far off for our tradition but they still keep the same faith.

I do not agree that the RC or EO keep the same faith as we do. On some points we are closer and on some we are further away, but it is simply not true that the things that separate us are all matters of differing terminology. But perhaps I have misunderstood what you mean, so I await your explanation.

I was trying to say by now we all know that most theologians think that both families have the same faith. On the ground of the quote posted above cant we find common ground to establish unity through the sacraments/faith but let jurisdictions/Rites continue?

I do not see how unity could be achieved in any other way but to recognize unity in belief but diversity in worship. The Oriental Orthodox have ancient liturgical traditions that they should preserve, just as we Eastern Orthodox should preserve our liturgical traditions. All that matters is unity in doctrine, not unity in liturgics. I do not think that anyone with any sense should expect the Oriental Orthodox to be absorbed by the Eastern Orthodox or the Eastern Orthodox to be absorbed by the Oriental Orthodox. Just as in America, Russian and Greek Orthodox keep their own administration and liturgical practices, but are in Communion with the Antiochians who keep our own administration and liturgical practices, so can the Oriental Orthodox be in Communion with the Eastern Orthodox and keep their own administration and liturgical traditions.

Fr. John W. MorrisFr. John W. Morris

Amen!

I agree. This is the tradition of the Church fathers, and if unity was to happen, this is the tradition that we will also uphold. Unity in dogma while diverse in liturgical cultures.

Strongly Agree!

Right now both families recognize some of each others sacraments at least mildly.. example Baptism, Christmation and marriage. However, they don't allow communion unless special circumstances by the bishop. I would like to see unity in faith and in sacraments in my lifetime, where I can go into an E.O Church and receive communion and respect their Byzantine Rite and if they also choose they can come and partake the communion in the Coptic church and respect the rite.